How Oregon is approaching wildfire planning

Oregon lawmakers recently passed legislation advancing wildfire programs in the state. And nearly a year after a draft wildfire map was withdrawn, the proposal gives the Oregon Department of Forestry and Oregon State University another chance at outlining hazards. Mariana Ruiz-Temple is the state fire marshal. Chris Dunn is an assistant professor in wildfire risk science at Oregon State University and will continue work on the state’s wildfire map. Mike Shaw is the fire protection division chief for the Oregon Department of Forestry. They join us with more on how Oregon is handling wildfire risk.

The following transcript was created by a computer and edited by a volunteer:

Geoff Norcross:  From the Gert Boyle Studio at OPB, this is Think Out Loud. I’m Geoff Norcross. Last year, the State of Oregon came out with a wildfire risk map. It had a lot of red in it. Big sections of Central, Eastern, and Southern Oregon were put in the extreme wildfire risk category. It also put about half of the state’s tax lots into areas that are considered vulnerable. As one lawmaker said, people exploded. The State Forestry Department was swamped with complaints from people who felt their new designations would mean bad news for their insurance premiums and, more broadly, they complained the maps just kind of happened without public input. So the map was scrapped and lawmakers approved new legislation that directs the state to try again.

We’re gonna talk about this new attempt to map the state’s wildfire risk and, more broadly, about how the state is approaching wildfire management. Mariana Ruiz-Temple is the state fire marshal. Mike Shaw is the chief of fire protection for the Oregon Department of Forestry. And Chris Dunn teaches wildfire risk science at Oregon State University. Welcome all of you to Think Out Loud.

Chris, let’s start with you. You were instrumental in developing the old map and you will be similarly involved in the new one. Were you surprised by all the blowback from the public?

Chris Dunn:  You know, we had anticipated some level of controversy, but not nearly to the extent that we received. So yes, we were surprised.

Norcross:  What do you think you and your team got wrong?

Dunn:  Primarily what we got wrong was the lack of public outreach and coordination as we continued to develop the map. Much more was needed upfront and consistently throughout the process and then following it.

Norcross:  Why did that not happen?

Dunn:  You know, we were on a really constrained timeline and there were a lot of components to building this. We had one year to deliver this map and during that year, we needed to develop the rules that defined it, which was a public process through a rules advisory committee. That took a significant amount of time as we worked with that 26-member committee to define how we were gonna go about actually mapping this. And then at the same time, we had to be prepared to create the analytics that supported what they wanted to see in the map.

Norcross:  Regardless of the fact that you were on a compressed timeline, the map was an objective reflection of available science, wasn’t it?

Dunn:  Yes, that’s correct. We built it, not only by the definitions that this broad rules advisory committee outlined for us, but we worked with our local regional and state analysts that operate in the wildfire environment. These are the folks that deliver fire behavior estimates for our incident management teams that are responding to fire, as well as private industry and our science team here and in a big broad collaboration, as we tried to develop the best product, based on the science that’s available today.

Norcross:  All right. Well, there’s this new Senate bill that passed this last session. It directs you to try again basically. What’s going to be different this time?

Dunn:  Well, I think one of the obvious differences is going to be our public outreach and listening sessions. So [the legislation] mandates eight meetings that the Oregon Department of Forestry, myself, and others will be at, working with the local counties. But we’ll go beyond that and we’ll reach others and hear their concerns and hear their interests and, in the future, what this map should look like. And we’ll take that into consideration and develop that to the degree that we can, within the bounds of science objectivity. In so doing, we hope that more people will understand the process that we went through, and ultimately, the outcome that is generated from that objective process so that it’s better accepted on the back end.

Norcross:  But one concrete change that I understand is going to happen with this new map is the word “risk” isn’t going to be used. Instead, it will be “hazard”. What’s the thinking there?

Dunn:  Yes, that is correct. [Senate Bill 80] did change that. So when we define wildfire risk, there’s three components that feed that. [The first two are] the likelihood that an event is going to occur, which is a major component of it, (we refer to that as burn probability) and the intensity of the fire when it arrives at a location. Those two components together are hazard, the fire hazard that we have, the environmental hazard of where we’re located in the state of Oregon. And then there’s one more component that defines risk, which is the susceptibility of the resource. In this case, the property or the home. And the susceptibility of the resource is not something that we were assessing with this map. We were really focused on the hazard or how those two components align, the exposure that a parcel or property has. The susceptibility then is determined at a later stage within this process of this legislation.

And so, by separating the full risk profile, we can separate those components and say the map is intended to identify your local wildfire hazard. The susceptibility then is really about managing the home ignition zone, defensible space home hardening standards. And that comes later. And that helps us explain more clearly what the map serves and how other components of this legislation work in conjunction with the map.

Norcross:  Yeah, that’s interesting because a lot of people said, “If you had come to my home and you had seen the defensible space and the home hardening that I had done, maybe my area would not be in red.” So will this new process allow for that more?

Dunn:  The map, as defined by the legislation, will not include people’s actions at their home, the susceptibility. That comes after the fact. So what we’re doing is assessing that hazard. And you think about it, somebody today may live in a home and do all of these defensible space measures and they may move on and sell the home and somebody that moves in may not do those. But we want to understand, with this map, is what the hazard is that helps identify whether or not a person should do those actions. And then the state fire marshal and others will determine what those actions should be and whether or not they’ve already been made.

Norcross:  Let’s bring the state fire marshal into this, Mariana Ruiz-Temple. The work of mapping the state in this way all began with the passage of an [Oregon State] Senate bill in 2021. And that was a response to the exceptionally bad fire season that we had the year before. What kind of direction did Senate Bill 762 create for your office?

Mariana Ruiz-Temple:  Senate Bill 762 was really the first-of-a-kind Oregon wildfire omnibus bill. And it provided mandates to 11 different state agencies as well as Oregon State University. In regards to the [Office of the] Oregon State Fire Marshal, it mandated our agency to create a defensible space code and where it would apply. And that is as indicated on the m ap. So our office really took a look at what it takes to build a first-of-a-kind code for the State of Oregon. And we worked with our stakeholder group which began last year in earnest, more in June, and created what we’re calling a guideline now, based on the mandates established to us in 762.

So we were able to create a code or a guideline that helps educate and provide resources to individuals on how to build that defensible space around their home. And that defensible space essentially helps protect people, property, but also our firefighters. That was mandated to be completed in December of 2021. And so that guideline is currently out there. We’re continuing to refine and work with our stakeholders on what that will look like once it does become a code. And that’s really based on the finality of the map.

Norcross:  And how will all of that direction be different, if at all, under Senate Bill 80 which passed during this year’s session, which is largely considered to be a fix for many of the problems in the previous bill that we talked about?

Ruiz-Temple:  Yeah, great question. I think the difference, in terms of the verbiage is, as you indicated, the name of the map. But it also changed the classifications or the zones of the map and so you have high, medium and low. And previous legislation had more levels or zones of the map. And so what we expect to see next year when the map comes out is different classification zones, from 4 to 3. And then using that map and our guidelines established by our stakeholders to really educate folks how to build that habit formation and resiliency in communities and the work that we can do as Oregonians to help protect our own property, help protect our firefighters and really build that resilience in communities.

Norcross: Mike Shaw is here too. He’s the chief of fire protection for the Oregon Department of Forestry. And Mike, I want to turn to you. How do you plan, or maybe the question is, how are you mandated to work with OSU and the Office of the Fire Marshal in managing wildfire risk under this legislation that we’ve been talking about?

Mike Shaw:  A good question, thanks, Geoff. I appreciate the answers from both Chris and Mariana thus far and would say that the passage of Senate Bill 80 really doesn’t change how we work with those folks. We have such close relationships both with OSU and with the Office of State Fire Marshal that we’re continuing to work in that vein. What I would say is that the passage of Senate Bill 80 is really critical for us as an agency because we’re really excited about the opportunity to have the time now to work with local governments and landowners and all interested folks as we embark on this new hazard map with these critical changes that were identified by both Chris and Mariana, and based on your questioning.

Norcross:  Many federal agencies have a hand in managing wildfire risk as well. So far, we’ve been talking about efforts at the State level, but does the new legislation, in some way, direct you in a particular way when it comes to working with the Feds?

Shaw: It does not. We, as well, have great relationships with our federal partners, be that the United States Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, you name it. And they have their own mandates. And I think that was one of the challenges that landowners saw when they looked at the map. Some of those vast swaths of red or orange occur on Federal ownership. And again, to Chris’s conversation about the criteria that outlines that environmental hazard: climate, weather, vegetation and topography. The management on Federal ownership also plays into the visibility of what that map looks like. And we’ve seen really significant investment at the federal level through the bipartisan infrastructure bill and some other fuels reduction investments that have been made at the federal level to help with this challenge that we’re seeing in Oregon. Because at the federal level, they recognize that this is even bigger than Oregon, right? This is a western states issue that is getting a lot of attention lately.

Norcross:  Mariana, what kind of funding does Senate Bill 80 create for your office and how are you gonna spend that money?

Ruiz-Temple: Previous legislation put a pretty significant investment at a state level to 11 agencies. For the most part that was one time funding, knowing that in order to address the new era of mega fires in Oregon and to continue to live with wildfire, it would take long term durable investments. And that was stated many times, not only by our stakeholders but all levels of government as we kind of embarked in this new new era.

What Senate Bill 80 did was to provide, into the Community Risk Reduction Fund which was already established in 762, $3 million. And currently with the Community Risk Reduction Fund, we were able to create four or five tailored grants specifically focused on the built environment communities and how to reduce risk, whether that’s mitigation, whether that’s education and training. And so what we hope to do is leverage that $25 million investment that Oregon made over the last two years, identify the successes of those programs and continue to look for other opportunities for funding. Our hope is to get $3 million to the ground to help amplify and help continue the work that our locals are doing. Great projects like we just heard from Mayor Callahan, whether it’s our counties, our cities, our [non-governmental organizations], our fire agencies, it’s to continue that investment and continue it into the future.

Norcross:  Can you give me a specific example of a community that has a need that the grant money like this would help with?

Ruiz-Temple:  Absolutely. We, today actually, are kicking off our Community Wildfire Risk Reduction Grant. That was an $18 million investment. We received 160 requests for projects. We were able to award 106 all over the State. And all of those awardees are on our website. But the town of Butte Falls was one of them. We know Grants Pass, Jackson, Maupin, and you name it. Every area of the state has a need. As Chief Shaw just indicated it’s a Western problem, it’s an entire state of Oregon problem, but it’s also a national problem. So I say that only to recognize that every area of the state has a wildfire exposure. And making sure that we’re providing funding to those that are most prone to it, but also those that are most vulnerable to it. All of our grants are really built around exposure to wildfire, but also the social vulnerability aspects within communities.

Norcross:  On the accountability front one thing the Legislature and the Governor are requiring from you is bi-annual reports from your office to the Legislature about how wildfire prevention activities are progressing. And you released one in January of this year. What kinds of information go into those reports?

Ruiz-Temple: Yeah, great question. We are required to provide those. Our next report will be coming out in August. And what we’re doing is working with each individual grant program [which] has an evaluation process to identify what it was that we were able to get out of it, whether it’s a capacity grant, how many firefighters were we able to provide. Or if it’s a defensible space program, the dollars, but also maybe those boots on the ground assessments that we did. So it’s really identifying through data and metrics, what those dollars were able to do.

It’s also telling the success stories of what those dollars would do, whether that’s mitigation or strategic investment. So the intent of 762 in those reports we’re to ensure and rightly so, the accountability of those dollars to our locals to demonstrate the successes of those or identify areas of continuous improvement. And so, like you identified, our second report for this year will be coming out in August.

Norcross:  Well, I wanna bring Chris Dunn back into this because I’d like to look forward to the restarting of the process to draw up the map and, as you say, the goal of bringing the public in more and earlier. So how do you hope to engage with the public in this process?

Dunn: Oh, that’s a great question, Geoff. You know, SB80 outlines eight meetings that we’re going to begin with and that’s gonna be the start of the process. And with SB80, we also received additional funding for a science communications specialist to bring here to OSU to help build more tools and more information and a broader program to reach the public. And so we’ll do those eight initial meetings and that’ll set a foundation. That, along with the appeals and comments that we received from the lands map, [will guide] how we best engage the broader community and go out and meet them where they’re at to have these discussions, to work directly with them to develop a new path forward for success with the map and the broader SB 762.

Norcross:  I apologize if you answered this already but when do these public meetings start?

Dunn:  The first eight I believe will be in September. That would be a better question for Chief Shaw. And then we’ll build out from there.

Norcross:  OK. Well, anything you want to add to that Chief Shaw?

Shaw:  Yeah, Chris hit that on the head. Those begin in September and run through the month of September. And there are eight regional meetings in which we’ll meet with county commissioners and their staff to look at all of the stuff that we heard in the first effort and take in more feedback and input from those folks, based on their local conditions and their local concerns.

Norcross:  Between now and then we do have a wildfire season to get through. And the last question is, is for you, Mike Shaw. Our wildfire picture has been over 100 years in the making. We’ve mismanaged forests, people are building in the forest. We have an extended drought. While the wildfire season has gotten off to a slow start here, of course, it’s going to get going and it is going to be disruptive. Why should all of the moves that we’ve been talking about here give us reason for optimism?

Shaw:  Well, you mentioned it, Geoff and that’s a great question and I could spend a long time. I’ll try and shorten it because this is a big issue. But you said it well. It’s taken us 100 years of forest management activities and fire suppression activities to put us where we are today. And I think we can all see that, exacerbated by climate change, has created today’s fire environment. And if we don’t start today, 20 years from now, others behind us are gonna be having these same conversations. So it begins today with understanding the environmental hazard that we live in and understanding some of those processes and activities that we can take as individual Oregonians to help be part of the solution as we move forward.

Norcross:  Thank you all. I appreciate this conversation. Mike Shaw is the Fire Protection Division Chief for the Oregon Department of Forestry, Mariana Ruiz-Temple is the State Fire Marshal and Chris Dunn is an Assistant Professor in wildfire risk science at Oregon State.

Contact “Think Out Loud®”

If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show, or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983. The call-in phone number during the noon hour is 888-665-5865.